You are on page 1of 2

Remerco Garments Mfg. V.

Minister of Labor (1985)


February 28, 1995
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Weekly Rest Periods

G.R. Nos. L-56176-77


CUEVAS, J:

SUMMARY: After 3 consecutive warning and finally a suspension, Remerco applied for clearance to terminate the
employment of Bustamante, Raymundo, and Corpuz. The 3 had refused to render work on Sundays, despite being
required to do so. The Acting Director of the NCR MOLE had granted the application but this was reversed by the
Minister of Labor and Employment, who declared that the dismissal of Bustamante, et al. had been illegal. Remerco
thus filed a petition for certiorari with the SC. The SC dismissed the petition. The Court held that there was no showing
that the terminations were for a valid cause and in any case the penalty of termination was too severe for the act
complained of.
[DOCTRINE] The Constitution mandates SECURITY OF TENURE and JUST AND HUMANE CONDITIONS OF
WORK. Labor Code: Duty of EVERY EMPLOYER for profit or otherwise to provide each of his employees a rest
period of not less than 24 hours after every 6 consecutive normal work days. This is true EVEN if there really existed
an urgency to require work on a rest day.
FACTS: Note: Prof. Sobrevias was said to be facts-heavy last semester.
Zenaida Bustamante, Luz Raymundo, and Ruth Corpuz (BUSTAMANTE, ET AL.) were employees of Remerco
Garments Mfg. (REMERCO) engaged in the manufacture and export of clothing.
Bustamante, et al. each had gotten 3 consecutive warnings, and then finally a suspension, for allegedly refusing
to render OT work.
Remerco filed 3 separate applications for clearance to terminate the employment of Bustamante, et al for the
following reasons: (NOTE: all 3 filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, in opposition.)
o Corpuz: allegedly defaced company property (in violation of Remercos Rules and Regulations) placed
a check mark on a jacket with a chalk.
o Raymundo: for insubordination she refused to work on her rest day.
Raymundo was required to work on a SUNDAY when she specifically requested for exemption
on that day (which was initially approved by her immediate supervisor, but was ultimately
disapproved by top management).
o Bustamante: for abandonment, since she failed to report for work after the expiration of her suspension
such suspension also because she did not report for work on a Sunday.
The Acting Director of the NCR MOLE granted Remercos application for clearance to terminate.
The Minister of Labor and Employment set aside the decision of the Acting Director declared the dismissal of
Bustamante, et al. illegal.
o Ordered reinstatement w/o loss of seniority rights and privileges, w/ full backwages.
Hence, this petition for certiorari filed before the SC.
ISSUES:
1. Were there sufficient legal grounds to justify the dismissal of Raymundo and Bustamante? (NOTE: Corpuz had
withdrawn her complaint)
2. (Discussion on procedural issue omitted.) LATIN PHRASE MENTIONED: Labor law determinations should
not only be secundum rationem (according to reason) but also secundum caritatem (according to a charitable
heart).

DODOT

CASE #14

HELD: (Petition DISMISSED)


1. NO.
To dismiss or lay-off an employee is the sole prerogative of management, however this must be exercised
without abuse of discretion what is at stake is not only the positions of Bustamante, et al. but also their means
of livelihood.
o Right to dismiss differs from manner in which that right is exercised the manner must NOT be
oppressive and abusive.
For Raymundo:
o She had a valid ground not to work on Sunday: the day before, she had been granted a clearance slip to
be exempted from working on Sunday by her immediate supervisor.
Ultimate disapproval of request creates the impression of a hostile attitude characterizing the
efforts Remerco to ease out w/ undue haste.
o Also, no showing that the failure to report constituted one of the causes that justify termination.
For Bustamante:
o Was ill on the Sunday in question (fever, stomach ache).
o Also, abandonment of work by an employee is inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint
for illegal dismissal which Bustamante did.
***The Constitution mandates SECURITY OF TENURE and JUST AND HUMANE CONDITIONS OF WORK.***
(SC: These militate against the severity of the sanction of dismissal from service for merely failing to work on
a Sunday.)
o Labor Code: Duty of EVERY EMPLOYER for profit or otherwise to provide each of his employees a
rest period of not less than 24 hours after every 6 consecutive normal work days.
This is true EVEN if there really existed an urgency to require work on a rest day.

DODOT

CASE #14

You might also like